A
merican
____________________________________________________________
| Establishing partnerships between artists and art museums |
alon
uried
rt
J
A
S
| THE BELIEVING BRAIN: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies--- How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths Michael Shermer, PhD 2011 Times Books Henry Holt and Company New York Summary by Milt Masur THE BELIEVING BRAIN Michael Shermer Prologue The postmodern belief in relativism plus the minimal attention span of the “click” generation has produced an “obfuscating amalgam of theory and conjecture, reality and fantasy, nonfiction and science fiction.” Shermer wants to know not just believe, and to do so requires science-we live in the age of science, he states so why do so many people believe in what is scientifically unbelievable? The demographics of belief A 2009 Harris poll showed that approximately 3/4 of Americans believe in God, miracles, heaven, Jesus as God or son of God, angels, survival of the soul, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ; 2/3 believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, the devil and hell. Twenty to forty-five percent accepted Darwin’s evolutionary theory, creationism, ghosts, UFO’s, astrology, witches and reincarnation. Another poll in Britain, in 2006 showed the belief in 26-62% of adults that they can read other peoples’ thoughts and vice versa, that they have had premonitory dreams, that they could feel when others looked at them, that they could sense a loved one’s illness or trouble, that they could tell who was calling on the telephone, that they had seen a ghost and that near death experiences are evidence for an afterlife. A majority of people hold a paranormal or supernatural belief which is sometimes fueled by the media. Approximately 70% of Americans do not understand the scientific process (NSF study) defined as grasping probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing. According to polls, however, there is no correlation between scientific knowledge and its application in evaluating pseudoscientific claims. Students are taught what to think but not how to think. The problem is deeper than that because most of our deeply held beliefs can’t be changed by direct educational tools. Belief change comes from a combination of psychological readiness and a social and cultural shift in the zeitgeist, itself a product of political, economic, religious and social changes. Belief-Dependent Realism: Why People Believe Belief systems are powerful and enduring-why do people believe things? Shermer states that our perceptions about reality depend on our beliefs about reality, even though reality is independent of human minds. The brain is a “belief engine.” It places sensory data into patterns and infuses the patterns with meaning which become beliefs shaping our perception of reality. Subsequently, the brain looks for confirmatory evidence for the beliefs which reinforces them, a positive feedback loop. Sometimes, people form beliefs from a single revelatory experience, and sometimes people look at evidence and reverse their beliefs, although these are relatively rare. The process of belief dependent realism is patterned after “model dependent realism” (Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design.) Our brains make a model of the world, and when that model explains things adequately, we think it’s true. When more than one model is potentially applicable, we pick the most convenient one. The models themselves are belief dependent, therefore belief dependent reality supercedes model dependent reality. We become judgmental about our beliefs because we have evolved the need to form coalitions with others with like-minded ideas and demonize those who disagree. We tend to dismantle other ideas as nonsense or evil or both. We cannot escape this epistemological trap. We can, however test models scientifically; therefore belief dependent realism is not epistemological relativism where all truths are equal. Even though this is true, our beliefs are dependent on so many factors that are subjective that our understanding of reality is “an enchanted glass full of superstition and imposture.” (Francis Bacon). Shermer starts with narrative evidence, then turns to the architecture of belief systems, their formation and forces which affect them, their use of evolved patternicity and agenticity, the neurophysiology of belief construction, the relation to cognitive processes, the patterns and agents which are real and those that are false. Science works as the ultimate pattern detector allowing us some freedom within belief dependent realism. Part I JOURNEYS OF BELIEF Some people have experiences which convince them that they have had out of mind experiences. These are sometimes caused by “lost-love anxieties.” The turmoil-racked mind longs to hear that “you are loved by a higher source that wants your love in return.” Shermer points out that there is an inner source for the outer voice- a misfiring or otherwise signaling neural network which resembles an outer stimulus. This happens (hallucinations) both naturally and artificially. Shermer cites an experiment in which the psychologist (Rosenhan) had eight normal people feign hallucinations, all of whom were admitted to mental hospitals for 7-52 days and were discharged with diagnoses of “schizophrenia in remission.” The patients’ descriptions of their interpersonal relations were mis-interpreted to fit with their diagnoses. The real patients in the hospitals were able to discern that the pseudo-patients were not mentally ill. To test the obverse of the diagnostic label effect, Rosenhan contacted the mental hospitals involved, telling them of his experiment and that over the course of three months, he would send in other pseudo-patients, asking that the staff indicate which ones they thought were the fakes. Out of the next 193 patients admitted, 41 were classed as impostors and another 42 as probable impostors; however, no pseudo patients had been sent! Rosenhan concluded that “The hospital itself imposes a special environment in which the meaning of behavior can easily be misunderstood.” Shermer states: “What you believe is what you see. The label is the behavior. Theory molds data. Concepts determine precepts. Belief-dependent realism.” 1. KNOW THE MIND ITSELF AND YOU KNOW HUMANITY The source for understanding existentialist questions is the mind itself. To achieve self and human understanding, understand the mind. However, says Shermer, the mind is a term that really is applied to brain function, although some people think that brain function is in some way a product of the mind. 2 DR COLLINS’S CONVERSION Francis Collins is a PhD-MD, former head of Genome project, head of NIH, member of National Academy of Science, et al--"one of the greatest minds of our generation.” He changed from atheist to theist. He opened his mind to the possibility of belief that there are things outside of nature. He was influenced by C.S. Lewis who wrote popular non-fiction and fictional works, using the “liar, lunatic or lord” argument about Jesus. Collins saw beautiful work of nature on a hiking trip and had an epiphany about God’s existence. Collins talked to Shermer, describing his conversion. Collins was a medical resident working 100 hour weeks, “overworked and under slept, trying to be a good husband and father.” He felt called to a decision. He felt joy and peace for a year, then began to have doubts, wondering if it had been an “illusion” He was reassured.by a fellow scientist who indicated that doubt was part of the process of faith, which kept you growing. There is a spectrum from extreme disbelief to extreme belief in God, neither of which is entirely defensible, although Collins believes that belief is more rational than disbelief. Collins thinks that intelligent design creationism is bunk. Collins describes genetic evidence for human evolution. Ancient repetitive elements in DNA which are usually functionless are “litter” in mammalian genomes, and make up about 45% of mammalian genes. Darwin had predicted that mutations which do not affect function would accumulate over time. Collins says the presence of these non-functioning genes in all mammals, usually in the same place in the DNA code is proof that all mammals have common ancestors. Collins explains everything by natural law except the cosmic laws of nature and moral law. His observations as a physician that the faith of patients was a potent psychological crutch despite extremis situations made him question and eventually reject atheism on the basis that we have free will and the ability to choose. Collins says that the ultimate origins of the universe and moral law can’t be explained by natural law. Shermer says that our moral laws evolved from reciprocal altruism and eventually evolved to feeling good when doing things for other people. Collins points out that this would mean that good and evil have no basis. What is the source of the moral voice, asks Collins-his answer is God. Shermer says that this is an example of belief dependent realism, when there is no clear cut answer. Reason’s Bit and Belief’s Horse There is no correlation between intelligence and belief, although intelligent people are more skilled at defending their beliefs. Most people arrive at their beliefs because of personality and temperament, family dynamics, cultural background, influence of family, friends, peers, education, mentors and life experience. We form beliefs by applying our accumulated perceptions and filtering into our brains what confirms those perceptions while rejecting contradictions. Reason’s bit is in the mouth of belief’s horse. The reins pull at the bit but ultimately the horse takes its natural path. 3. A SKEPTICS JOURNEY Shermer describes his arrival at his present beliefs via the brain’s story-telling apparatus, the left hemisphere interpreter, reconstructing events into a logical sequence, a process especially applicable to biography and autobiography. Born Again No members of Shermer’s family and step-family particularly were religious or non-religious, and all four of his parents and step-parents were not college educated. He became “born again” as a senior in high school and had an evangelist peer group. He attended Pepperdine University, which was steeped in evangelical Christian teaching and practice. He became interested in psychology and attended graduate school, and was introduced to evolutionary concepts which contradicted the creationist ideas he was familiar with. Most important, he was encouraged to challenge all beliefs without fear of psychological loss or social reprisal. The Difference in World Views (and the difference it makes) He was encouraged to use scientific thinking and to keep an open mind. He learned to reject “mentalist” explanations of behavior which refer to theoretical constructs about inner states and reify them as if they had physical existence (mind-body dualism). He studied evolutionary animal behavior (ethology) and cultural anthropology and comparative world religions, realizing that non-Christians had beliefs as firm as those of Christians. He recognized that believers filtered all their thoughts through a religious lens, and therefore overlook chance, randomness and contingencies. The “realism” in this Christian world was belief dependent and distorted, and overlooked the laws of nature and probability. Finally, when he dealt with the problem of evil, he found no explanation for terrible things happening to good people. This penetrated his concepts emphatically, when his college sweetheart was paralyzed after an accident. He realized that God had no special plan for his girl-friend. The principle of Principled Values Plato delineated a principle in the dialogue Euthyphro: is the holy beloved by the gods because it is intrinsically holy or is it holy because it is beloved by the gods? The dilemma stands in monotheism today as it did in the polytheism of the Greeks. If there are no gods, values created by the gods are useless. Principles, including political, social, economic and moral values are present whether you are a theist or an atheist. A Radical for Liberty Shumer was raised by fiscally conservative but socially liberal parents, what he calls Libertarian. He was influenced by Ayn Rand, because in the post-modern age of moral relativism, Rand’s ideas were clear, passionate and unequivocal: Objectivism, grounded in objective reality, reason, self-interest and capitalism. However, her theories often were believed with a cult-like literalness. Shumer came to disagree with her one sided perception of humans beings as selfish, competitive and greedy, because of the demonstration by psychologists and anthropologists that people were also altruistic, cooperative and charitable, a result of evolutionary ethics and economics. Rand described herself as “a radical for capitalism;” Shumer says he is “a radical for freedom.” Shumer was also influenced by a physicist named Andrew Galambos who taught at the Free Enterprise Institute. That concept of freedom involved 100% control of one’s biological, intellectual and material property, as long as it didn’t affect other peoples’ property. However, the concept foundered because of disagreements about property rights infringements. Shumer also was influenced by Jay Stuart Snelson, who followed the Austrian school of economics, especially Ludwig Von Mises. The effect of common criminal behavior on freedom was nothing compared to political restriction of freedom by government intervention in society’s workings. Everything should be privatized, and restriction should only be market driven. However, Shumer recognized that there was considerable difference between theory and practice. He turned to the economic ideas of the University of Chicago, which had become more mainstream as the country shifted to the right in the 1980s. These included many followers of the Austrian school, but especially those of Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose. Interventionism leads to more interventionism, economic, cultural and indirectly, psychological. An Unauthorized Autobiography of Science Shumer thinks that we tend to perceive science incorrectly, ranking science as soft, medium and hard and writing in either technical or popular fashion. This classification is inaccurate and unreal, he says. The social sciences are much more complex and multifaceted than the so-called hard sciences, with many more degrees of freedom to control and predict Shumer states. Likewise, technical or scientific writing, the narrative of explanation, presents a too neat and tidy explanation, purportedly scientific, but teleologically based, forcing facts into a causal chain. He prefers what he calls integrative science, blending data, theory and narrative, and informal science writing, which he describes as the narrative of practice, with intuitions, guesses and fortuitous findings, more accurately describing the process of scientific testing. He indicates that he used these principles in writing this book. What if I’m wrong? What would I say to God? Shumer wonders whether he could be wrong about God. Some people believe that there are other dimensions outside the limits of science. Maybe there is mind outside of the brain and this transcends the body and continues after death to connect ultimately with the divine. He doubts it. The only way to decide whether anecdotes are real is to test them. Also, why would an omniscient, omnipotent and omniphilic God care whether an individual believed in him? Wouldn’t such a deity be more concerned with comportment in this world, rather than entrance to another world? “A jealous god feasts on the empty calories of baser human emotions.” If there is an afterlife, Shumer says he will make his case as one in which he did the best he could with the equipment he had and acquired. He can’t understand any more despite his best efforts, so “...do with me what you will.” PART II THE BIOLOGY OF BELIEF 4 PATTERNICITY Psychologists classify associations as Type I (false positive) and Type Two (false negative). Our brains are belief engines-evolved pattern recognition machines, which associate data, a process called association learning. Shermer calls this process of finding meaningful patterns from both meaningful and meaningless noise, patternicity. Patternicity occurs whenever the cost of a type I error is less than that of a type II error. The problem is determining the difference between the errors, which may require instant decisions and can be dangerous or even life-threatening if incorrect (e.g., in our ancestral environment.) The default position that has evolved is type I; assuming that all patterns are real is a conservative attitude, which leads to taking no chances. This theory may explain why people believe things and how organisms can adopt to their environments very rapidly. Evolutionary modeling test’s Shermer’s theory. He gives the example that a positive social interaction between genetically related individuals may occur because the relatedness may exceed the cost of the action. That is, you are more likely to help a brother than a half-brother, and a half-brother more than a stranger. “Blood really is thicker than water.” The calculations made are unconscious, and are a result of natural selection leading to emotions that guide behavior. There are evolutionary advantages to being pro-social, cooperative and altruistic towards group members and honorary group members. These patterns apply in social behaviors and between clans and tribes in mutually beneficial exchanges (trade). The inability of individuals to assign causal connections to events will force them to lump non-causal connections to causal ones. This is the evolutionary basis for superstition and magical thinking, which are not errors in cognition, but natural learning processes. “People believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe nonweird things.” The Evolution of Patternicity Anecdotal evidence is a common form of patternicity that may lead to false conclusions. This can be counteracted by scientific thinking. Superstition and magic are millions of year old, and come naturally; scientific method is only a few hundred years old, and requires training. B.F. Skinner studied superstitious behavior in animals, finding that patterned behavior evolved in response to changes induced in the environment, especially when reinforced. These patterns become conditioned even when they are extraneous to producing the desired response, and are seen in humans as well. False and/or extraneous accidental patterns become attached to productive patterns-the equivalent of superstition and magical thinking. Learned superstitious patterns can be unlearned; they can be de-conditioned, but this occurs more readily in animals than humans, apparently because our greater ability to learn is accompanied by a greater capacity for magical thinking. Hardwired Patternicity The ethologists Lorenz and Tinbergen demonstrated animal capacity to rapidly form lasting memory patterns, i.e., imprinting, the formation of fixed patterns of behavior during a youthful developmental phase where exposure to external stimuli occurs. A form of reverse imprinting occurs in humans around the incest taboo. People growing up in close proximity are unlikely to be sexually attracted as adults. This seems to be a result of genetic natural selection endowing us with emotional reactions of disgust, extended even towards non-genetically related close relations during childhood. (Type I error). In animals, there are genetically determined preferences triggered by a sign stimulus which stimulates an innate releasing mechanism which in turn leads to a fixed action pattern of behavior (SS-IRM-FAP). Facial Recognition Patternicity Facial recognition in humans is an example of sign stimulus-innate releasing mechanism-fixed action pattern. We have evolved the ability to recognize and maintain relationships by reading emotions and reliability in social interactions. We scan faces for signs of “emotional leakage” and relate accordingly. We have discovered that general facial recognition usually occurs instantly in the temporal lobes of the brain via a fast, unconscious neuronal pathway. Specific facial recognition then occurs by a slower pathway, 1/2 second later and in part consciously. The lag in neural activity that occurs gives us an illusory feeling of free will; we don’t recognize the unconscious neural stimulus as we react. Facial reaction patternicity has been documented with hidden cameras in nearly all human groups (except those in which it is culturally suppressed as in Japan.) There are universal innate reaction patterns in facial expressions. Mimicking Patterns Mimicry is another form of patternicity whereby organisms react to associative patterns which are similar but not the same. The ability to make such associations becomes genetically entrenched and persists even when one of the associative patterns no longer functions. An example is the persistence of the taste for sweet things which were once prized for their rarity, but are now in abundant supply. There are also aversion effects which result from a noxious associative interaction but persist in a similar setting even without the noxious element. Such an aversion can be a result of a one trial learning episode, and is an important adaptation for survival. Supernormal Patternicities Innate patternicities can react more strongly and even preferentially when precipitated by more intense stimuli compared to their usual stimuli. Old patterns of reaction can be hijacked by new stimuli which forcefully replace old ones. Examples include sweet and rich foods displacing more nutritious foods, and supernormal sexual attractiveness displacing less paradigmatic sexual features. Pornography is usually a more supernormal visual sexual stimulus for men than women. The supernormal sexual stimulus for women is more likely a real or imagined dramatization of “...finding and capturing the heart of the right man.” Other pre-programmed patternicities with supernormal stimuli include the “territorial imperative,” and the need to provide for one’s offspring. Patternicity and Control Patternicities relate to the extent of control exerted by an individual. Those with a high locus of internal control believe they make things happen; those with a high locus of external control think that things just happen to them. Skeptics tend to have a high internal locus of control whereas believers tend to have a high locus of external control. Levels of certainty and uncertainty about physical and social environments influence the level of superstition and magical thinking. Where chance, accident, danger and emotion play a large role, magic and superstition assume a large role. Where certainty, reliability and rationality play a large role, we don’t find much superstitious and magical thinking. There is also a relationship between personality, belief and patternicity. For example, believers in ESP were more likely to see patterns in noise and to misidentify these objects through type I patterns of thinking. Believers tend to rate unrelated sequences as more probable than do skeptics. Skeptics give less meaning to randomness. Illusory pattern perceptions such as false correlations, imaginary figures, superstitious rituals, conspiracy beliefs are attempts to gain control perceptually when this is not objectively possible. Lack of control is highly aversive, so we seek out patterns to regain control, even if those patterns are illusory. Once the perception of a link is made between two events, information is gathered in order to support it, even if one can think of alternatives. Negative events, especially if unexpected, produce faster and more tenacious perceptive linkage than positive events. When an explanation of event linkage occurs in an atmosphere surrounded by a prejudicial aura, the event linkage is conditioned by the prejudice. This is an example of an illusory correlation. Illusory pattern detection and illusory correlation can be mitigated by reinstating a greater sense of control in judgment by reaffirming an individual’s life- values. Knowledge is another form of control which mitigates illusion and delusion. The Power and Perils of Patternicity There is harm in living in delusions and illusions, especially if false positive associations (type I) are made. False patternicity leads to conspiratorial concepts and inappropriate slavishness to theory these are forms of pseudo-science grounded in superstition and magical thinking. This describes the possible power and peril of false, belief-dependent realism. 5 AGENTICITY Shermer describes Agenticity as a theory of mind: the capacity to be aware of desires and intentions in others and ourselves, a kind of attribution. Agenticity is the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention and agency. We believe these intentional agents control the world from the top down rather than from the bottom up via randomness and causal laws. When we combine agenticity, patternicity and our propensity to find patterns (both meaningful and meaningless) in noise, we have the cognitive basis for worshiping. We also tend to believe that objects, animals and people contain an essence which makes them what they are and that this essence may be transmitted. There are evolutionary reasons for this essentialism, which relate to avoiding the contact with potentially deadly things. We generalize these essence emotions to natural and supernatural beings and give them agency and intention. If essences are thought to be transferable, we become a member of a tribe joined by its essence, rather than isolated individuals. Non-tribal members are perceived as having a different essence. “We are natural-born supernaturalists, driven by our tendency to find meaningful patterns and impart to them intentional agency.” Agenticity and the Demon-Haunted Brain For centuries, demons incubi, sucubi, spirits, ghosts, ghouls and aliens have inserted themselves into our lives. Are these creatures of the world or of our minds? They are in our minds, but that is the same as in our brains. Neurophysiologists, e.g., Michael Persinger have induced “temporal lobe transients,” changes in neuronal firing patterns, by manipulating magnetic fields around the brains of volunteers. The result is “supernatural” types of bizarre experiences and feelings. Apparently, this relates to uncoordinated discharges of the right and left hemispheric temporal lobes, one of which is sensed as the presence of another, foreign being. If the amygdala, at the base of the temporal lobes, is taken into the circuitry, significant emotional feelings are part of the pattern. There is research exploring the hypothesis that paranormal experiences are illusions created by changes in brain electrical and chemical activity. Some of the data jibe with this hypothesis. Agents who stare at Goats Psychics and magicians use deceptive tricks to create illusions which fool their audience. However, the US CIA was involved in an experimental psychic spy program, during the Cold War, called “Stargate.” This program investigated the possibility that “psychological operations” could perform various spy operations from afar. Among the operations attempted was killing goats by staring at them (a preliminary to killing enemy soldiers that way), levitation, walking through walls, turning invisible and viewing hidden objects remotely. Shermer, who has investigated paranormal phenomena for years, says that what people remember rarely corresponds to what actually happened. Telephoning Dead Agents “Priming the brain to see or hear something increases the likelihood that the percepts will obey the concepts.” He gives an example of alleged paranormal links to the dead through distorted voice reception on telephone receivers. Voices heard are purportedly from dead loved ones and seem real to some people, but they are just misperceptions by people who are primed to hear them. Shermer describes an experiment where displaying the lyrics of a song visually to an audience influences the interpretation of words audible in a different song, which was falsely introduced as the original visual song. These so-called paranormal events are examples of patternicity and agenticity. Agenticity and the Sensed-Presence Effect Sometimes we discover how the brain works when it doesn’t work well. In situations of extreme emotional isolation or physical hardship the brain conjures up a sensed (but unreal) presence as it seeks guidance or help. This is an example of agenticity. The conditions that are associated with generation of a sensed presence include monotony, darkness, barren landscapes, isolation, cold, injury, dehydration, hunger, fatigue, sleep-deprivation and fear. Shermer describes sensed presence phenomena in Charles Lindbergh’s account of his sleep-deprived transatlantic flight as well as in exhausted mountain climbers. The sensed presence in these cases seemed to help in decision making. Observations have been made by psychologists that in similar situations, the sensed presence is viewed as unreal but utterly compelling. These are forms of agenticity. Shermer was heavily involved in three thousand mile transcontinental bicycle races across America and describes how the participants, under grueling conditions would have distorted perceptions and misinterpretations of objects as well as out of body experiences and hallucinations, somewhat akin to dreaming. Similar experiences occur in a thousand mile sled-dog race in Alaska. What is the cause of these phenomena? Shermer suspects multi-causality because such different environments are involved. He suggests four overall explanations: 1. an extension of the normal sense of presence 2. A conflict between controlled reason and automatic emotion 3. a condition in which the brain perceives more than one physical self 4. a condition in which the brain perceives more than one psychological self or mind. 1. An extension of the normal sense of presence. We develop a sense of the presence of others whether they are there or not, as a result of having lived among others, and after perceiving cues which remind us of others. Shermer calls these sensed presence expectations. 2. A conflict between controlled reason and automatic emotion. We are usually aware of controlled, deliberate step-by-step logical processes. We are unaware of our unconscious, parallel, non-volitional, automatic emotional responses. When executive cortical functions with which we control our reactions compete with automatic emotional functions, the higher functions weaken in extremely stressful conditions. People describe themselves as out of control and unable to reason in these circumstances. 3. A condition in which the brain perceives more than one physical self. The brain normally develops an overarching picture of one’s body as a result of its neural perception of one’s body, described as embodied cognition or the extended mind. Touching, language and communication media are examples of external furtherance of the extended mind. Your brain can be tricked or damaged or altered into thinking that there is another you- a “doppelganger” which conflicts with the real you. To resolve this anomaly, the brain constructs a plausible explanation for the doppelganger-it is someone or something else. The mismatch occurs between the temporal lobe and the parietal lobes of the brain because of an altered orientation in space emanating from these regions. When this part of the brain is quiescent as during deep meditation and prayer, people describe feeling at one with the world or in contact with the transcendent. These quiescent processes have created a mismatch between the body schema and the world, and this may also occur under other conditions. Phantom limbs are another example of such a mismatch. Phantom limb pain can be ameliorated by fooling the brain into perceiving the mirror image of the intact limb as if it were the missing limb. Phantom limbs, body schemas and visual and auditory hallucinations are the neurologic correlates of the idea that there is a mind-body separation which we attribute to real and phantom others. 4. A condition in which the brain perceives more than one psychological self or mind. Our brains constantly work at myriad neural connections, but we perceive one mind in one brain. A supervisory function that weaves everything together is played by the left hemisphere interpreter, the brain’s storyteller. (This concept resulted from studies of patients whose left and right hemispheres were surgically separated to treat severe epilepsy.) In some brain pathological states with bizarre behavior patterns, patients will make up phantasmagoric stories to explain their bizarre behavior. These must be based on patternicity and agenticity but we don’t understand the neural correlates of those processes. Shermer thinks that the left hemisphere interpreter is a good candidate for where it happens. He indicates that the sensed presence phenomenon may be the left hemisphere interpreter explaining right hemisphere anomalies. Or, perhaps there are neural network conflicts in body or mind schemas. Or it may be loneliness and fear extending our normal sensed presence of real others into imagining ephemeral companions. The phenomenon happens inside the brain and not outside the body. Shermer says that the explanations of superstition and magical thinking as patternicity and agenticity are not causal explanations per se but are merely descriptions of phenomena which must have a neurologic basis. 6 THE BELIEVING NEURON Mind is a word to describe neural activity in the brain. Injury to the brain alters the mind, which sometimes can be rewired into other parts of the brain and again function as mind. Force Mental: A Non Explanation for Mind Thinking, learning, understanding and processing are attributed to mind functioning, but they really relate elsewhere. What are the forces at work here? We need to know the cellular and molecular forces involved and cannot settle for a vague “mental force” any more than we can understand how an automobile engine operates with a vague “combustion force.” To understand belief, we have to understand how neurons work. Synaptic States and Believing Neurons The number of brain cells and their connections (neurons and synapses) is astronomical. The more the neurons, the greater the computational power and each neuron is a complex electro-chemical information processing machine. The neuron has phases of discharge of electrochemical energy and refractoriness to discharge. Many neurons acting in concert can electrochemically propagate down its wire-like pathways (axons), which summate in space and time. The speed of propagation is related to the diameter of the axons and the amount of insulation (myelin) surrounding them. The discharge of neurons is an “all or none” phenomenon related to reaching a critical neuron firing point. There is no soft or hard stimulus involved, only a stimulus sufficient to reach a critical threshold. Therefore neurons communicate information in one of three ways: 1. firing frequency 2. firing location 3. firing number. Neurons are binary in action, signaling on or off, as do computers. There are trillions of possible choices available for processing information; to all intents and purposes an infinite number is available. How do complex thoughts and beliefs get created? Fragments of information get bound together (neural binding) which move through convergence zones which integrate information from multiple sources, so that an individual experiences the neural input as a whole image rather than fragments. To make sense of this neural binding through convergence centers, large brain areas such as cortex, coordinate input from smaller areas which collate neural events from still smaller brain modules. This reduction in neural event recording occurs down to highly selective single neurons which discharge with specific stimuli sensed by the organism, for example, neurons which fire with recognition of specific patterns or individuals. What we experience during these processes are subjective thoughts and feelings, described as qualia, although that feeling is a result in itself of integrating the binding of neural networks. Communication between neurons occurs in the synaptic cleft between them, via chemical transmitter substances which trigger the firing of the post- synaptic neuron, which in turn fires into succeeding synapses, releasing more chemical transmitter substances into a neural network. Common neurotransmitters are dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine as well as serotonin and gamma amino benzoic acid (GABA). The neurotransmitters are either re-used or destroyed. We build systems from the bottom up, starting with chemical transmitter substances and bind inputs into integrated systems through behavior-association learning or patternicity. Dopamine: The belief Drug Dopamine seems to the neurotransmitter most associated with belief, and is critical in the learning and reward system called operant conditioning, where reinforced behavior tends to be repeated. Dopamine release produces pleasure sensations accompanying mastery of tasks with an impetus towards repetition. Dopamine relates to a mid-brain accumulation of neurons called the nucleus accumbens, which produces orgasm when stimulated. Unfortunately, dopamine release is also related to stimulation by addictive behavior and drugs, with reinforcement of those stimuli, a form of patternicity. An unresolved issue is whether dopamine release causes pleasure per se or motivating behavior in addition. Experimentally, people with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences, and to pick out meaningful patterns where there are none. Giving subjects exogenous dopamine increased the tendency to do so. Finding the Signal in the noise According to one theory, dopamine may increase the perceived signal/noise ratio, leading to the increased perception of apparently meaningful patterns regardless of their true lack of meaning. Dopamine binds to synaptic clefts between neurons and increases the rate of neural transmission in these as well as increasing links to new neurons. The increased pattern detection (learning) associated with increased dopamine can enhance creativity (discriminate patternicity) but also produce madness (indiscriminate patternicity). The process is dose related-too much and there are false associations; too little and you miss real connections. Paternicity in the Brain In experiments where visual field stimulation is split into right and left, significantly more patternicity in noise stimuli was found in the right hemisphere than the left. This was true for both paranormal believers and skeptics. However, there was more left brain influence on perception in the skeptics and more right brain influence on perception in the believers, as measured by both split visual fields and brain wave (EEG) patterns. There are dissimilar tendencies between the hemispheres, with the left brain dominant in writing and speaking and the right brain dominant in non-verbal and spatial tasks. As a first approximation, it’s reasonable to describe the left brain as literal, logical and rational, and the right brain as metaphorical, holistic and intuitive. Utility determines the appropriate balance between the two hemispheres. Creativity appears to be related to right brain dominance, finding new patterns in noise. However, finding nothing but patterns in noise may be the difference between creativity and madness. Patternicity, Creativity and Madness Creativity involves finding novel patterns and generating useful original ideas or products from those patterns. When the process is indiscriminate, with an all-inclusive thinking style, such as in schizophrenia, differentiation of meaningful from non-meaningful patterns doesn’t occur. Personality traits are related to tendencies to perceive particular patterns. False pattern detection seems to relate to “improper” processing of dopamine in the pre-frontal cortex, especially the anterior cingulate cortex, which is activated when people are given multiple choices with small differences in distinctive detail. Delusional thinking involves inability to distinguish between pattern meanings. Creative people seem to have “an over-inclusive” thinking style and will see many patterns also, but are able to distinguish between nonsense and relevance. The co-discoverer of natural selection was Alfred Russel Wallace, who later broke with Darwin over the evolution of the human brain. Shermer describes Wallace as having a heretic personality, a “unique pattern of relatively permanent traits making an individual open to subjects at variance with those considered authoritative.” Psychological error detection tests show that the anterior cingulate cortex becomes active during error detection testing in normal people, but tends to be less active in schizophrenics. Shermer proposes a plausible explanation for the link between patternicity, creativity and madness. We all seek patterns, but vary in the tendency to do so and our ability to interpret them. We are able to use our error detection networks to distinguish among patterns, but some people are ultra- conservative and see few patterns and others are less discriminating and see more patterns. There is more creativity in a tendency to greater pattern perception, which may lead to discovery, if accurately perceived, or delusion if inaccurately perceived; that is the difference between genius and madness. The Neuroscience of Agenticity The dualist theory of neural function is the concept which sees the brain as separate from the mind and the body separate from the soul. On the other hand, monists believe that the mind is found in the neural activity of the brain and is not a separate entity and that the mind and the soul are not separate from the brain. Dualism is an intuitive concept- it feels as if our minds are separate from our brains. Most people even believe that when the body dies, the soul lives on. The brain is thought of as a cognitive prosthesis, added onto the soul to enhance its computing power. Hallucinations are perceived as real and patterns of information are perceived as soul. The Charles Bonnet syndrome refers to visual hallucinations in people who have lost their vision. Measuring brain activity with functional MRI during these hallucinations reveals that with geometric hallucinations, the visual (optic lobe) cortex is most active, while during hallucinations involving faces, the temporal lobe is most active. Sometimes image fragments are hallucinated, with most activity in the inferotemporal cortex. There is interruption of integration of these fragments when people are visually impaired, apparently because with no external stimulation, spontaneous discharge occurs. The Charles Bonnet syndrome illustrates how the mind is an illusion generated by the brain, even though we intuitively act as if there really is an agent in a theater watching the world go by on a screen. Theory of Mind and Agenticity The theory of mind describes our self-awareness of beliefs, desires and intentions as well as those of others. This “mind reading” is an imaginative projection of our thoughts and feelings. There are three brain areas which are consistently activated during these processes, and which seem to participate in its application. (Anterior paracingulate cortex, superior temporal sulci and the temporal lobes.) The theory of mind probably evolved from the ability to distinguish between inanimate and animate objects, the ability to hold an object’s attention via eye gaze, the ability to distinguish self-action from other-action and the ability to represent goal directed activity. Shermer thinks the theory of mind is an ex- adaptation-- a feature co-opted for a different purpose from its original evolutionary purpose. He thinks that the original evolved features were imitation, anticipation and empathy. Mirror neurons were serendipitously discovered in monkeys, in which recordings of single motor neurons were being made while a human being imitated the behavior of the monkey (reaching for a peanut). The human activity and the monkey activity fired the same monkey neuron. “Monkey do, monkey see.” The neuron in the monkey mirrored external activity. Mirror neurons have been found in multiple parts of the brain in monkeys, and in humans on MRI scans. The suggestion has been made that mirror neurons are motor neurons that respond to seeing as well as doing. To imitate actions, one needs a visual and a motor memory of the actions, and this seems to account for learning by imitation. There appear to be different neurons which discriminate between different intentions, a fact which allows predicting the intentions and the actions of others. “This is the very foundation of agenticity.” Belief in the Brain Beliefs precede rationalization of one’s belief-dependent realism. Most beliefs are perceived as somewhere between unmistakably true and unmistakably false. MRI monitoring has been done of human subjects faced with choosing among true, false and uncertain statements. The subjects processed the choices more rapidly when they were true and more slowly when they were untrue or uncertain. We seem to accept appearances as reality until proved otherwise. The brain links cognitive and emotional response associations in specific areas of the cortex, and damage to these areas produces disability in deciding between good and bad decisions. This predisposes to confabulation, mixing true and false memories and conflating reality with fantasy. Spinoza conjectured that belief comes quickly and naturally, skepticism is slow and unnatural and most people have a low tolerance for ambiguity. The research supports his conjectures. The scientific principle that a claim is untrue until proved otherwise runs counter to our natural tendency to accept as true what we rapidly comprehend. We should reward skepticism, but instead tend to reward belief in doctrines e.g., in faith, party or ideology, and we tend to discourage challenge, uncertainty and skepticism. The Brains of Believers and Nonbelievers MRI studies of self-reported Christians and nonbelievers were compared as they evaluated religious and non-religious propositions. The evaluation activity was seen taking place in the same areas of the brain in both groups, and was independent of the content. There were no separate neural networks for belief and disbelief. Sam Harris (who did the above investigation) thinks that the distinction between facts and values is spurious and suggests that the validity of a belief depends on its origins, and not on our convictions. Conviction can become uncoupled from good reasons and good evidence. PART III BELIEF IN THINGS UNSEEN 7. BELEIEF IN THE AFTERLIFE By soul, we mean the pattern of a person’s memories, personality and personhood. These all are stored in our genes and patterns of neuronal connections, and when our bodies die, so do these genes and neural patterns. The effect is like the effects of a stroke or dementia-no brain, no mind; no body, no soul. That is the monist position. Dualists believe that there is an essence of a living being that survives its incarnation in flesh. Mind, vital breath and spirit are concepts of dualists, but are really metaphors for elements of our physical being. Natural-Born Immortalists: Afterlife as Agenticity A Harris poll in 2009 showed that large proportions of people who identified as Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Born-again believed in God, soul survival, heaven, hell and reincarnation. Why do people believe in an afterlife? Shermer says that the mechanisms he previously described in this book factor into after-life accounts. 1. Belief in the afterlife is a form of agenticity in which we view the patterns we find in life as having meaning, agency and intention, and that we can extrapolate those ideas into the future. 2. Belief in the afterlife is a type of dualism, in which our minds are separate from our bodies. 3. Belief in the afterlife is a derivative of theory of mind. We can “read” minds via projection and empathy and imagine this continuing into the future. 4. Belief in the afterlife is an extension of our body schema. We project our body image into the future, even without a body. 5. Belief in the afterlife is probably mediated by our left hemisphere interpreter, which integrates both sensible and senseless data into a nominally sensible explanation. 6. Belief in the afterlife is an extension of our ability to imagine ourselves in space and time, a process called decentering. The Disembodied Mind and the Eternal Soul Believers in the afterlife believe first and provide reasons as rationalizations. There are four lines of evidence provided by believers. 1. Information Fields and the Universal Life Force. This is the concept that Nature preserves data as “morphic information fields” that exist separately from individual organisms and connect all life together. Information can be re-patterned, but not destroyed or created. Thus our souls (personal patterns) precede birth and survive death. A proponent of this theory is Rupert Sheldrake, a British biologist who has presented an idea he calls morphic resonance, “...mysterious telepathy-type interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within species.” An example Sheldrake gives is the sensitivity to being stared at from behind. Shermer documents that this purported sensitivity, when formally tested with volunteers, was found to be a chance finding. 2. ESP and Evidence of Mind. ESP if true would be evidence of a disembodied mind independent of the brain. A number of scientists consider psychic epiphenomena to possibly exist outside our tendency to infuse patterns with intentional agents and supernatural forces. These parapsychological (psi) forces have been looked for in subjects placed in isolation booths, and claims made for the existence of information and energy transfer without known physical or biological mechanisms. However, Shermer indicates that the experiments have been methodologically flawed and biased and that their positive results are not reproducible. Furthermore, there is no explanatory theory for how psi works. 3. Quantum Consciousness- the observation that subatomic particles in one location affect related particles in another location is sometimes taken to mean that the universe is a giant quantum field where we can influence each other instantly. Believers use this idea to extend consciousness outside the brain. One concept is that “...mind may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms to molecules to neurons...” Shermer counters, stating that ”the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large scale macro systems is too large to bridge.” He cites the work of a particle physicist indicating that the mass and speed of neural transmitter particles could not produce quantum effects. Shermer describes the theory of quantum consciousness as yet another reductionist schema to explain the workings of the mind, analogous to Descartes’ attempt to reduce mental functioning to the actions of swirling atoms dancing their way to consciousness. 4. Near-Death Experiences in which people perceive “out of body experiences” purportedly akin to aspects of afterlife. The experiences involve loss of consciousness with what has been termed “dreamlets” involving episodes of distorted perception. These perceptions occur predictably in studies by the military on the effects of extreme g-force induced loss of consciousness. They also occur when the human temporal lobe of the brain is electrically stimulated, suggesting that they relate to the sensate processing of the body schema. Studies of Buddhist monks correlate brain scans during meditation with lowered neural activity in the parietal lobe (considered to be the orientation in space association area). The division between self and non-self is conditioned by the degree of activity in this area, and could account for out of body perceptions. The idea is supported by the effects of removing parietal lobe brain tumors which caused changes in self-referential awareness involving transcendental feelings. Trauma can trigger near death experiences. In one series, twelve percent of patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest, reported them. The illusions produced during loss of consciousness had to be generated by the brain but were interpreted by the patients as external events. Hallucinogenic drugs have triggered such experiences, and so have some medications used therapeutically. The explanation seems to be a result of the temporal lobe-limbic system’s inability to distinguish between externally and internally generated events. Shermer repeatedly asserts that the brain and the mind are not separate. The paranormal and the supernormal are either subsumed into the normal and natural, or they disappear as problems to be solved. An Afterlife Interlude on Larry King Live Shermer describes a program in 2009 in which Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Deepak Chopra, Dinesh D’Souza and Michael Shermer discussed near death experiences. It became clear that none of the people described had actually died, and that death can take from minutes to hours to occur, depending on accompanying conditions. The people who had these experiences were not quite dead and therefore were not brought back to life during resuscitation; they were eventually brought to their previous level of conscious function. Shermer makes the point that “the fact that we cannot fully explain a mystery with natural means does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation.” Shermer stated that without a brain, there was no mind. Chopra responded that destruction of a part of the brain doesn’t mean that function won’t come back, because there is the phenomenon of neural plasticity, whereby intact brain can be retrained to take over lost function. Shermer countered that it is neural re-wiring that produces the saved mind function. Chopra’s point of view is that the non-physical mind causes the physical brain to re-wire itself and that brain cells respond to will and intention-“...the mind is the controller of the brain.” According to Shermer, Chopra uses “quantum pseudo-science” by stringing together quantum physics terminology to explain the larger world. Chopra compares mental phenomena analogously to subatomic particle behavior with no basis to do so. Shermer makes the general point that there is fuzziness in using terms such as mind, will, intention and purpose. He indicates that Chopra uses these terms loosely, and that these words just describe thoughts and behaviors which are all driven by neural behavior which is not causally explained by the words. Shermer thinks that neuroplasticity involves neuronal discharge patterns interacting with other neuronal discharge patterns associated with the lost function, in a feedback loop, thereby producing new synaptic connections or “re-wiring.” Hoping and Knowing Scientific monism and religious dualism are in conflict. There is no scientific evidence that the soul survives death. Ultimate purpose is in the here and know where we create provisional purpose in a higher plane of humanity and humility. 8. BELIEF IN GOD The World Christian Encyclopedia indicates that in 2009, 84 % of the world population belonged to some form of organized religion. Thirty-five % are Christians, 17% are Muslims, 15% are Hindus, 7% are Buddhists, and ethno-religionists make up the rest. There are about 10,000 different religions, with many subdivisions. The United States is among the most religious. A 2007 Pew Forum survey showed the percentage that believed: God or a universal spirit 92% Heaven 74% Hell 59% Scripture is the word of God 63% Pray once a day 58% Miracles 79% What God represents varies- An average of 75% of Christians believe in a personal God; 43% of non-Christians and unaffiliated believe in God as an impersonal force. Even 21% of atheists and 55% of agnostics believe in some form of God or universal spirit. Why God is Hardwired Into our Brains Why do so many people believe in God? God represents the ultimate pattern and intentional agent that explains everything that happened or happens. This amalgam of patternicity and agenticity forms the cognitive basis of all theisms and spiritualisms devised by humans. Although there is cultural variation, all these amalgams believe in supernatural agents which interact with us. These beliefs are hardwired into us. The evidence comes from evolutionary theory, behavior genetics and comparative world religions, all of which support the thesis that belief comes first and reasons later. Shermer states that it is impossible to know whether God exists, but we can conclude that there is intelligence greater than our own but considerably less than omniscience. Evolutionary Theory and God Darwin was aware from anthropological studies that there was a universal belief in spiritual agencies, but couldn’t account for this with natural selection among individuals. However, he considered natural selection to operate in group selection and inter-group competition, where adherence to particular values could be genetically selected. Shermer developed an evolutionary model of belief in God based on mechanisms used by religions. He defined religion as a social institution which promotes myths, conformity and altruism in a reciprocally cooperating community. He indicates that five to seven thousand years ago, small groups of humans began to coalesce into larger groups which produced enlarging forms of political governance. In conjunction with group political institutions, religions evolved to codify behavior in which God was perceived as the ultimate enforcer. Informal enforcement of social cohesion could be employed by moral emotions such as shame and ex-communication from the group. However, as the governing institutions became larger and individuals less manageable, a more formal mechanism was developed in the form of religion. The evidence for this group evolution can be found in universal traits relating to human activities and interactions occurring in daily life, but also traits related to religion and belief in God, such as rituals, animism, control of fortune, belief in the supernatural, etc. Shermer indicates that predilection for these traits is not entirely genetic and is partly cultural, although genetically predisposed characteristics would be nurtured in these groups. Another line of evidence is extrapolation from anthropological studies of modern day hunter-gatherer societies. There is an egalitarian distribution of the spoils of hunts, enforced by the will of the group which has a sense of right and wrong, coinciding with group welfare versus self-serving acts. Other hunter-gatherer societies employ supernatural beings and superstitious rituals to reinforce group cohesiveness relating to food distribution. Culture conditions the expression of our religious traits, but the need for belief in supernatural agents as an indispensable mechanism for group behavior is universal, and therefore must be hardwired in our brains. Behavior Genetics and God Behavioral geneticists try to separate environmental from genetic traits. Separated identical and fraternal twin studies show that measures of religiosity were present with twice the frequency in identical versus fraternal twins, and that genetic factors accounted for 41-47% of religious beliefs. These findings were confirmed in several large studies. The conclusion was that people who grow up in religious families have an inherited predisposition from one or both parents, and without such a genetic predisposition, religious teaching has little lasting effect. Shermer points out that these religious traits involve tendencies to believe in supernatural agents, and commitment to certain religious behavior, such as rituals, prayer, church attendance, as well as respect for authority and tradition. He asks why did we inherit such tendencies? There is a gene that codes for dopamine receptors and dopamine levels relate to learning, motivation and reward. Dopamine neuronal pathways stimulate organisms to become more active and reward behaviors that then get repeated. Loss of dopamine in animals and humans produces a catatonic state; Excess dopamine in animals produces frenetic behavior, and in humans, schizophrenic behavior. The number of dopamine receptor genes varies in individuals and has been correlated with the level of circulating dopamine: the more receptor genes, the lower the level. People with low level circulating dopamine and high level dopamine receptor genes tend to score higher on risk taking and novelty behaviors, apparently related to a search for increased dopamine. There is an hypothesis that some of us are born with genes that predispose to spirituality, a tendency to belief in God and religious faith. Another gene, (vascular monamine transporter) has been linked to addictive personalities, especially to the trait “self-transcendence.” Self-transcendence has been defined as a combination of self-forgetfulness, (being totally absorbed in an activity), transpersonal identification (feeling connected to a larger world) and mysticism (a willingness to believe in unprovable things.) Some researchers define these self-transcendent traits as a tendency to spirituality. Analysis of large numbers of people with self-transcendent traits was correlated with high levels of the vascular monoamine transporter gene. This gene acts to transport neurotransmitters which contain one amino group (dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin) from within the neuron to its synaptic connections, which may boost feelings of self-transcendence. While this particular theory is disputed, the idea that neurotransmitters can make us feel good and rewarded by believing in God seems possible. Comparative World Religions and God Comparative studies of God, belief and adherence to religion has produced a lot of theories, but all have in common a belief in supernatural agents. Shermer is less interested in the particular elements in a religion and more interested in why any god or religion is necessary. In a rough calculation, he indicates that over the past ten thousand years, human beings have created ten thousand religions and about one thousand gods.” As skeptics like to say, everyone is an atheist about these gods; some of us just go one god further.” Shermer adduces evidence that humans created God and not vice versa. First of all, the Abrahamic religions have different views about key religious figures and prophets as well as written texts. Add to that the views of various sects within these religions as well as the views of the non-Abrahamic religions, which of these if any, is correct? Flood myths show similar cultural influence and content, and existed in Babylonia before being described in the Judeo-Christian bible. Likewise, virgin birth myths are frequent in other ancient and even current religions, involving unions between humans and gods. Resurrection and fertility myths are shared similarly by multiple religions. Shermer describes a human propensity to form “oppression-redemption” myths in which death, adversity and bondage are overcome. He indicates that the propensity to do so is “hardwired” into our brains. Does God Actually Exist? It has been argued that the biology of belief is an issue separate from the existence of God, and that if God exists, it hardwired itself into our brains. What is God? In the industrialized West, God is associated with a non-corporeal monotheistic belief which is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It purportedly created the universe out of nothing but is itself uncreated and eternal and can lovingly grant eternal life to humans. The question becomes do you believe this God exists, or deny it or withhold judgment? Shermer’s answer is that the burden of proof is on the believer, not on the nonbeliever. Also, he states that there is evidence that God and religion are social and human constructions. Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, and the Burden of Proof Shermer refers to a bumper sticker that read “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know and You Don’t Either.” That is his position. Theistic belief implies belief in one God as creator and ruler of the universe. Atheism denies the existence of God and Agnosticism implies that the existence of God is unknown and unknowable. The word Agnosticism was coined in 1869 by a colleague of Darwin’s, Thomas Henry Huxley. Behaviorally, we act as if there is or is not a God- there is no way to act agnostically. So Shermer indicates that he behaves as an atheist but is intellectually agnostic, and calls himself a skeptic, because that label avoids association with social ideologies, and implies a need to consider evidence. We cannot deal with certainty on the God question because we hit an epistemological wall when we try to do so. We can’t answer the question “what was there before time began?” Theists argue that God is an agent or being outside of time, space and matter, but human beings operate within the natural world and can’t know a supernatural, infinite being. Theists, when confronted with these ideas, turn to personal revelation, which cannot by definition, serve as evidence to others or purported miracles for which there is also no discernible evidence. “...The veracity of a proposition is independent of the number of people who believe it.” Shermer states: “I have built a strong case that belief in a supernatural agent with intention is hardwired in our brains, and that the agent as God was created by humans and not vice versa.” Shermer’s Last Law and the Scientific Search for God Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God. Observation I. Biological evolution is slow compared to technological evolution. Observation II. The cosmos is very big and space is very empty, so the probability of making contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence is remote. Voyager I, our most distant spacecraft moving at 38,578 mph would take 74,912 years to reach Alpha Centauri, the closest star system to us. Deduction I. The probability of making contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence is virtually nil. Observation III. Science and technology have changed our world more in the past century than it changed in the previous hundred centuries. Computer power doubling has occurred thirty-two times since WWII and it is anticipated that “the singularity-” the point at which computer power will be nearly infinite will occur by 2030. At this point we will be indistinguishable from being omniscient. Deduction II. If we extrapolate these trends in thousands or even millions of years (a small amount of time in evolutionary terms) we can estimate how far advanced an extraterrestrial intelligence will be. We can already engineer genes after only 50 years of genetic science. In the future, we would probably be able to construct entire genomes, cells, multicellular life and complex ecosystems. Designing life is just a technical problem in molecular manipulation. Deduction III. If we can engineer genes, clone mammals and manipulate stem cells with today’s science and technology, than an extraterrestrial intelligence could do so much more with thousands of future years of technological and scientific progress. We might even be able to engineer the creation of stars and planets, and even a universe. We would call an intelligent being capable of engineering life and a cosmos scientifically and technically, an extraterrestrial intelligence. If we did not know the underlying science and technology, we would call it God. Einstein’s God The support for the notion that Einstein believed in God comes from isolated quotes such as: “God is cunning but He is not malicious... God does not play dice...I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details...For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn illusion.” Once the Einstein Papers Project published his archival materials, the biography of Einstein by Walter Isaacson told the full story: Einstein’s relationship to the Jewish people “became my strongest tie...Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.” “...That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind...We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” “...From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and always have been an atheist...It is always misleading to use anthropomorphic concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere-childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world-as far as we can grasp it. And that is all.” “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” Shermer comments that Einstein was very clear about what he believed, but has been egregiously misunderstood, another example of “belief blindness.” The Natural and the Supernatural Once mysteries, initially thought of as supernatural or paranormal are understood, they become part of science. We use some descriptive words and ideas such as “dark energy” as” linguistic place-holders” or “descriptors,” not causal explanations. In contrast, theists, creationists and intelligent design theorists, invoke miracles and acts of creation out of nothingness as causal explanations. Thus the supernatural is eventually seen as the natural; a supernatural God which exists outside of space and time is not knowable to science. Shermer cites a debate with a theist professor of medicine who argued that God is formless and immeasurable, and exists outside of time and space. Shermer’s response was how is it possible to know the existence of such a God if it is outside our concepts and perceptions? If God enters our space-time to make itself known, why can’t science measure such actions? If knowing about God occurs through deep meditation and prayer, what about understanding the neurophysiologic processes that occur during meditation and prayer, which explain the normal distinction between self and non-self? The theist had to admit that he had no rational answer and the question was analogous to why we love someone, although the answer seemed to transcend reductionist, neurophysiological explanations. Shermer says he has no quarrel with this belief statement, since no empirical claim was being made and therefore science could not comment. However, he points out that had the theist been born into a different environment, he would believe something entirely different about the nature of the universe. When we fall in love or believe in God, scientific explanations may add complimentary understanding but don’t conflict with the process. Neuro-hormonal accompaniments to the process of falling in love are part of an evolutionary adaptation for the long term care of helpless infants and don’t lessen the qualitative love experience. Shermer states that religious faith and belief in God have equally adaptive evolutionary functions. Religion is a social institution that evolved to reinforce group cohesion and moral behavior; it is a mechanism to facilitate cooperation among people, while providing an explanation for our existence. Shermer says it is time to step out of our evolutionary heritage and embrace science as the best tool for explaining how the world works, and how to create a social and political world that embraces moral principles yet allows human diversity to flourish. Religion fails at this because it cannot explain the natural world and cannot resolve moral conflicts when competing sects hold absolute beliefs that are mutually exclusive. Science, and the secular enlightenment may be flawed, but they are our best hope for survival. 9. BELIEF IN ALIENS Dreams and hallucinations of contact with aliens have inspired some people to create organizations, e.g., International Space Sciences Organization, dedicated to outsider ideas about physics and consciousness as well as the existence of UFO’s. The founder of this organization maintains that his faith powers his beliefs, and indicates that his religious beliefs indicate that “...the Cosmos is the product of intent...The physicality of intention allows the physicist in me to incorporate an understanding of emotion into the laws that govern the universe.” Shermer points out that this concept of physicality of intent is the embodiment of agenticity. The founder of the International Space Sciences Organization is a Mormon, and like the founder of the Mormon faith, he describes receiving a revelation. although unlike Joseph Smith, he describes encountering an alien instead of an angel. Alien Agenticity Shermer states that “We have the fantastic ability to project ourselves into other worlds of make-believe and the line between conscious fiction and subconscious imagining is a fine one.” Reality and fantasy may blur and sometimes become conscious when sleeping or under hypnosis. Hypnosis. Many abduction experiences are “remembered” through hypnotic regression where the subject imagines regressing in time, retrieving a memory and then playing it back on the imaginary screen of the mind. However, the memory as a recording device is a poor metaphor, since there is no device in the brain analogous to a recorder. Memories are formed by associative neuronal connections between things and events, and are strengthened by repetition and weakened by disuse. Memory contamination occurs when subjects are asked leading questions and construct imaginary scenarios. Sleep Anomalies Non-hypnotic abduction experiences are generated during sleep paralysis, and while nocturnal hallucinations occur, as we fall asleep and as we wake up. Multi-sense hallucinations occur during these transitional periods, sometimes with vivid intensity. Alien abduction experience are forms of nightmares during these anomalous brain experiences and can lead to a condition similar to post traumatic stress syndrome. People who have these abduction experiences have been studied and found to exhibit false recall and false recognition much more than control subjects. One researcher observed that alien abduction beliefs seem to gratify hunger for identity, security and significance, rather than belief in pseudoscience. The bottom line is this, according to Shermer: “...stories of UFO’s and alien abductions are far more likely to be due to known psychological effects of terrestrial beings rather than the unknown physical characteristics of extraterrestrial beings.” Are We Alone in the Universe? We don’t know if we are alone in the universe. There may be extraterrestrial intelligences, but they are probably rare and because of vast interstellar distances, very difficult to identify. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) involves scientifically discerning patterns from the background noise in space. There are a couple of hundred billion stars in our galaxy alone, and there are billions of galaxies in space. Will ET Look Anything Like Us? Shermer thinks that extraterrestrials would be unlikely to resemble humans, and that if the evolution of a smart, bipedal, technological hominid is inevitable, it should have happened more than once here on earth. Richard Dawkins disagrees, since the availability of planets is so huge that it implies millions or even billions of possible humanoid life forms in the universe. Shermer points out that humans tend to be chauvinists and our ideas that ET’s will be like us are anthropomorphisms with no basis in reality. Humans can’ t even communicate with terrestrial intelligences such as apes and dolphins, so it is simply hubris that makes us think that we can decode the communiques of extraterrestrial intelligences which have been around for millions of years. If primate intelligence is so vaunted, why did the Neanderthals disappear? Neanderthals as ETs Neanderthals split off from ancestral hominids more than 1/2 million years ago and arrived in Europe more than 1/4 million years ago, where they had free rein for about 1/4 million years. They had cranial capacity similar to ours and were tool makers. They disappeared 30,000 years ago. Their artifactual records show them to have been behaviorally inferior to their successors. Despite being present for 250,000 years there was little evidence of behavioral change, let alone progression towards large scale socialization. It is unlikely, based on paleoanthropological evidence, that they had articulate languages. Humans did eventually evolve from hominids, but we didn’t do what our predecessors did, only a little better. Something extraordinary happened. Fossils reveal that hundreds of primate species lived over the past thirty million years, and six million years ago, hominids split off from common ancestors and struggled for survival. Many of these species had large brain capacity, why did all but one go extinct? Shermer says “...we are a quirk of evolution, a fluke of nature, a glorious contingency.” The oldest trap of story-telling, pattern-seeking animals such as we are, is to see humans as the central purpose and meaning in the cosmos. A purpose seeking animal will see itself as the purpose of nature, the essence of alien agenticity. Aliens and Gods Shermer says that the concept of aliens as intentional agents is a link to the belief in religion and equates aliens with gods. The idea of superior celestial beings is not new or scientific; it is an old and widespread religious thought. Aristotle divided the cosmos into the superior celestial region and the inferior terrestrial region, ideas which were incorporated into Christian theology. The belief that creatures living above earth are superior to earth’s inhabitants has persisted. Shermer notes that the scientists who are members of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), had extensive exposure to fundamentalist religion as children, but became atheists or agnostics as adults. He and many other scientists and writers think that the organized search for aliens is a quasi- religious undertaking, still anchored in salvation from above. One science historian has suggested that when the Newtonian mechanical universe displaced the spiritual world of the middle ages, it left a “vast and lifeless world, which was filled by modern science with ETIs.” Another researcher wrote: “We live in an age when science and technology prevail and traditional religions are under fire. Doesn’t it make sense to wrap our angels and gods in space suits and repackage them as aliens?” Extraterrestrial Intelligences are secular gods-deities for atheists Shermer cites a researcher who was contemptuous of this notion. She indicated instead, that the search for ETIs was an attempt to determine whether human beings are alone. Shermer acknowledges the intellectual and scientific vigor of SETI. However, he says he is after the deeper, psychological motivation for the search. Why do we look into the vast cosmos for other intentional and intelligent beings who are vastly superior to us? His answer is that the belief comes first and the search to rationalize it comes afterwards. “We search for such ultimate explanations because we are pattern-seeking agent-postulating primates whose brains are wired to find patterns and agents even if the patterns are purely natural and the agents are just the laws of nature or other corporeal beings...we are explorers.” 10. BELIEF IN CONSPIRICIES Pattern of Conspiracy What are some of the characteristics of a conspiracy theory that indicate that it is likely to be untrue? 1. An obvious pattern of connection that may or may not be causally connected. 2. The agents behind the pattern of conspiracy need to be almost superhuman to accomplish it. 3. The more complex, the less likely to be true. 4. The more people involved, the less likely to be kept secret. 5. The grander and broader, the less likely. 6. Ratcheting up from small to large events is less likely. 7. Assignment of a high level of portentous and sinister interpretations. 8. The co-mingling of facts and speculation. 9. Indiscriminate hostility and suspicion. 10. Rejection of plausible alternatives. Why People Believe Conspiracies Shermer thinks that people are gullible if their “pattern detection filters are wide open.” Also, the propensity to confirmation bias and hindsight bias makes people susceptible. He describes people who tend to believe that everything is connected and causal as “transcendentalists”, and those that believe that randomness and coincidence interact with the causal features of the world as “empiricists.” Unfortunately, transcendentalism is intuitive and empiricism is not. Belief comes first and evidence, second. How to Test a Conspiracy Theory: The Truth about the 9/11 Truthers How does one test a conspiracy theory? Shermer uses the 9/11 conspiracy theory as an example. A film-maker with “Michael Mooreish ambitions” was convinced that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. The film-maker disregarded the claims of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda because of “unexplained” anomalies, such as steel melts at a much higher temperature than burning jet fuel could produce, therefore the attacks were orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the CIA to implement their plan for global domination et.al. Shermer cites his investigation of Holocaust deniers, employing the tactic of anomalies as proof, in that case, there were no holes in the roof of one of the gas chambers in Auschwitz, and the holes were necessary to pour in the poison gas. From this observation, the deniers extrapolate to no gas used at Auschwitz, or any prison camp, and no systematic extermination by the Nazis. No holes-no Holocaust; no melted steel-no Al Queda attack. Shermer states that “The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking.” However, anomalous events can be refuted because true beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone. In the 9/11 situation, Shermer adduces evidence that steel loses 50% of its strength at a temperature produced by burning jet fuel, which in itself set fire to other combustibles which raised the temperature further. This spreading fire caused horizontal steel trusses to sag, eventually breaking the angle clips that held them to the vertical steel columns, producing collapse of floors in a pancake stack effect. Conspiracists also argued that the impact of the planes should have bowled over the buildings, but Shermer adduces evidence that there wasn’t enough integral structural unity in the buildings to facilitate being bowled over. Conspiracists also falsely claimed that the buildings fell into their own footprint, which purportedly meant that explosive charges had been set to take them down. However, the buildings actually fell tilted outside their footprint. Another conspiracy claim was that the buildings fell from the top down “as in controlled building demolition;” however, controlled building demolition is done from the bottom up. Shermer goes into great detail objectively refuting the conspiracy theory of 9/11 as well as the missile theory of the attack on the Pentagon. Was 9/11 a Conspiracy? Yes, there was a real conspiracy, participated in by the nineteen Al Queda plotters and Bin Laden. Shermer documents the multiple attacks and attempted attacks by Al Queda prior to 9/11 and the existence of its network of operatives, as well as their proclamation of responsibility. Conspiracy Mongering Shermer gives a number of illustrations of people who insist on misreading events and stringing them together to suit their distorted views of underlying conspiracy. They are undaunted by facts and angrily demand that their distorted views of “truth” be acknowledged and try to rouse others to their point of view. They are hostile and unyielding when faced with factual refutation and need to invent conspiratorial plots and agents to harmonize with their misperceptions. How Conspiracies Actually Work There are real conspiracies, and Shermer cites several of them, including the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, as well as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Watergate conspiracy. What is the difference between real conspiracy and conspiracy mongering? He gives the details of the plot and events surrounding the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand to illustrate the random and contingent nature of real conspiracies compared to the hypothetical perfect world of conspiracy theorists. He describes the organization that fomented the plot, its objective and its source of technical support. He also describes the human failings of two of the multiple plotters, who failed to act, and a third who acted, but by chance, hit another target. The archduke initially escaped harm, but while riding in an open car to visit the unintended victims of the bomb plot, he was seen by another plotter, purely by chance, who fatally shot the archduke and his wife. Shermer indicates that real plots work like this-messy events that unfold according to real-time contingencies. They often turn on chance and human error. The propensity to think that conspiracies are well-oiled machines run with Machiavellian manipulation is an example of false patternicity and agenticity, where the patterns are too well delineated and the agents superhuman. Part IV BELIEF IN THINGS SEEN 11. POLITICS OF BELIEF Political liberals have predictable clusters of views on the many issues of the day; so do political conservatives. Political, economic and social beliefs form distinct patterns. The Power of Political Beliefs, or Why People Divide Themselves into Liberals and Conservatives A paper called “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition” published in 2003 in a prestigious psychological journal was a meta-analysis of eighty-eight papers published over fifty years, encompassing nearly 23,000 subjects. The researchers concluded that conservatives suffer from “uncertainty avoidance...terror management... and have a need for...order, structure and closure... as well as...dogmatism, and intolerance of ambiguity... all of which lead to ...resistance to change...and endorsement of inequality” in their beliefs and practices. The authors conclude that the motivation of political conservatives is significantly, but not entirely related to management of uncertainty and fear. Shermer points out that there was bias on the part of the liberal academics who studied the conservatives because they viewed conservatism as tantamount to a disease. Another psychologist criticized that disease model saying that moral psychology is not just about how we treat each other, but also about binding groups and institutions together and living in a sanctified, noble way. The author states: “When Republicans say that Democrats ‘just don’t get it’ this is the ‘it’ to which they refer.” Shermer turns the tables and describes conservative biases towards liberals: a lack of moral compass, equivocation, uncertainty, indecisiveness, naiveté and blind adherence to the view that culture and environment alone determine one’s role and therefore the government should remedy all social injustices. Shermer indicates that both the characterizations are flawed and both sides collect data to support their perceptions. He cites The political Mind by George Lakoff and The Political Brain by Drew Westen, books which describe liberals as generous, rational, intelligent and optimistic who appeal to reason through cogent arguments. On the other hand, conservatives are characterized as heartless, dour, dim-witted authoritarians who appeal through threat and fear mongering. Most elections were thought to be won by conservatives because of Machiavellian manipulation of voters’ emotional brains and therefore liberals need to appeal more to voters’ emotions. Shermer states that the characterizations are driven by liberal belief bias and the idea that conservatives are winning is erroneous. He reviews Senate and Congressional races over the last 150 years (up to 2006) and indicates that the Democrats had the winning edge. As for the personality traits, in national opinion polls done from 1972-2004, conservatives have reported being considerably happier than liberals, being mentally healthier than liberals and being more generous than liberals despite tending to be less affluent. Conservatives believe charity should be private whereas liberals think it should be public. Based on voter registrations and polls of academic institutions in multiple studies there is a liberal bias of academic social scientists, with a national average ratio of 8:1. In 2001, UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute national study found that 5% of academics were far left, 42% were liberal, 34 % were middle of the road 18% were conservative and only 0.3% were far right. There was also a 4:1 liberal bias in law schools. The liberal bias appears to dominate much of the media. Studies made in 2005 by counting the number of citations of various think tanks and policy groups by the media and comparing them to the number of times congressional members cited those sources showed a generally leftward bias, with notable exceptions (Fox News Special Report and Washington Times). The more neutral outlets were PBS’s NewsHour, CNN’s Newsnight and ABC’s Good Morning America; the most centrist of news sources was USA Today. Sherman also cites media with predictable conservative bias Such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. There are also commentators who are unpredictable and try to break the party line by responding to new data, such as Dennis Praeger, Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens. They are not squarely in the middle of an ideological pattern. Shermer’s point is that when the media strap on an ideological belief, they enter a pattern of specific positions which they bolster with the audience they appeal to. Partisan Hearts and Political minds Shermer refers to political scientists who have found that most people select political parties because they identify with a political position and then find a political party that fits. There is a tribal nature in modern politics. There are also stereotypical attitudinal views from and towards liberals and conservatives. Shermer indicates that most moral decisions are grounded in automatic feelings rather than deliberate rational calculations. We intuitively leap to a conclusion and then rationalize the decision. We seem to have moral emotions that helped us to survive and reproduce which can be broken down into five universal innate psychological systems: 1. Harm/care, related to attachment and empathy and underlying kindness, gentleness and nurturance. 2. Fairness/reciprocity, related to reciprocal altruism and a sense of right and wrong, and underlying justice, rights and autonomy. 3. In-group/loyalty, related to tribe and coalitions, and underlying patriotism and self-sacrifice. 4. Authority/respect, related to hierarchical social interactions, and underlying deference to leaders, authority and traditions. 5. Purity/sanctity, related to disgust and contamination, and underlying less carnal and more noble attitudes. One research team ( Haidt and Graham) studied the moral opinions of over 118,000 people from over a dozen world regions and found important divergent patterns relating to political proclivities. Liberals were higher than conservatives on Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity, and conservatives were higher than liberals on In-group/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity. Despite the cluster of specific emphasis, each viewpoint did not entirely exclude the moral emotions of the other viewpoint. So instead of viewing liberals and conservatives as either right or wrong, we should recognize that each group emphasizes different moral values and tends to sort into different clusters. In psychological experiments in which punishment was inflicted on subjects who did not contribute to the common good, cooperation among subjects deteriorated until the non-contributors agreed to contribute to the common good. The conclusion was: “In order for there to be social harmony society needs to have in place a system that both encourages generosity and punishes free riding.” Society has two such systems which arose five-seven thousand years ago: religion and government. As small bands coalesced into tribes and then into states, the population became too large for informal social control such as by gossip and shunning. Religion and government evolved as social watch- dogs and enforcers of the rules. The liberal and conservative group proclivities manifested themselves in these institutions. There is a liberal tendency to preference for public regulation through government, and a conservative tendency to preference for private regulation through religion, community and family. The problem has been that our moral groupings produced teams of people divided against each other. This has had dire consequences. Shermer gives an example of this societal divide in a film called A Few Good Men which illustrates the liberal-conservative difference in moral foundations. In this film, in a military context, there were fundamental conflicts between individual liberty and group cohesion. Shermer leans towards individual fairness, justice and liberty and worries that overemphasis on group loyalty will trigger our inner tribalism and its corresponding xenophobia. On the other hand, there is much evidence that our tribal instincts run deep and good fences do make good neighbors because evil people really are part of the moral landscape. Tragic, Utopian and Realistic Visions of Human Nature Understanding the moral values underlying the beliefs of liberals and conservatives helps to attenuate the tendency to demonize either group as evil. Shermer thinks that the two party system evolved because of the tendency to emphasize these important but sometimes irreconcilable values. Just as religious attitudes have an hereditary component so do political attitudes, both having been demonstrated in identical twins separated at birth. The gene coding is for temperament and individuals sort out their clusters of moral values as embodied in society’s institutions. Views of human nature as constrained (conservative) or unconstrained (liberal) can also be argued to link to these two clusters of moral values. (A conflict of Visions by economist Thomas Sowell). The moral controversies over social issues such as taxes, welfare, social security, health care, criminal justice and war reveal a consistent ideological dividing line. If polarized human options are at the heart of these often disastrous controversies, then we have to explain how they have been avoided or minimized. Which vision one uses will shape the sought after solutions. The unconstrained vision posits committed solutions to the most seemingly intractable problems; the constrained vision views the amelioration of these problems as causing problems in itself and is therefore limited by prudent trade-offs. Shermer believes that the unconstrained vision is utopian (“no place” Greek). An unconstrained utopian vision of human nature accepts the “blank-slate” model of the human mind in which society can be re-engineered to undo history’s injustice. However, Shermer does indicate that most liberals are not utopian and accept that human behavior is biologically constrained to some degree. He therefore rejects the two unambiguous categories of vision and thinks there is really “...just one vision with a sliding scale,” which he calls the Realistic Vision. In the realistic vision, human nature is constrained by biology and evolutionary history and therefore social systems must be structured around those realities. A realistic vision rejects the blank slate model of a malleable, re-engineering of society, and accepts that family, custom, law and traditional institutions are the best sources for social harmony. A realistic vision recognizes the need for strict moral education to deal with the dual moral nature of humans, and also recognizes the genetic variance of physical and intellectual endowment. Shermer therefore concludes that governmental redistribution programs are unfair to those from whom the wealth is taken, and those who did not earn their largess cannot and will not equalize these natural inequalities. He cites evidence from multiple disciplines in support of his idea of realistic vision, (although some of them are debatable): Clear and quantitative physical and intellectual differences, often genetic, exist among people which affect their success. Genetic influences in temperament, personality and proclivities are substantial. Top down draconian controls of political and economic systems (Communism and Socialism) do not work. Failed utopian community experiments demonstrated that people don’t adhere to the Marxian principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Family ties are powerful, and the connectedness between blood relatives is deep, which makes raising children by surrogates a questionable practice. The principle of reciprocal altruism is universal- something must be given in return. The principle of moralistic punishment is also universal; people do not tolerate free-loaders. Social structures usually are hierarchical; egalitarianism rarely occurs. Dominance, violence and aggression are almost universal and status-seeing is widespread. Amity within groups and enmity between groups is almost universal. The desire of people to trade with each other in order to gain benefits is almost universal, and leads to the unintended consequence of trustfulness and less enmity. Shermer believes that our country’s founders based our government on a realistic vision of human nature. The tension between individual liberty and social cohesion can never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and so the pendulum swings left and right. He thinks that in Europe, the polarization between liberals and conservatives is the same.. Left, Right and Off the Charts Realistic vision can also be described as realpolitik.. However, Shermer turns to his idealpolitik, Libertarian, which he equates to freedom and liberty for individuals, but protected. He states that the only way power can be rightfully exercised in a civilized community, against one’s will, is to prevent harm to others. The development of democracy defeated the monarchial tyranny of the magistrate, but democracy can lead to tyranny of the majority, obviated by the Bill of Rights. What constitutes infringement on other people is sometimes an issue, but essentials to freedom are: The rule of law, property rights, economic stability through a secure banking and monetary system, freedom of movement in a reliable infrastructure, freedom of speech, press and association, mass education, protected civil liberties, a robust military and police force for self-defense, a viable legislative and judicial system to establish fair and just laws and enforce them. These tenets bridge the liberal and the conservative points of view. Belief and Truth Belief statements in politics are not always the same as those in science. The former are convictions about desirable goals and the latter are expressions of evidence based perceptions. However, scientific assessment of human nature can and should help to realistically inform political beliefs and goals. Shermer refers to the book The Science of Liberty by Timothy Ferris which attempts to link democracy to science. Ferris states that John Locke’s belief that people should be treated equally under the law was an untested hypothesis in the seventeenth century, although it has since been verified. Ferris believes that science and liberalism (and presumably, conservatism) are methods for testing hypotheses, rather than being ideologies. These methods all incorporate feedback loops through which actions can be evaluated. Using the modality of hypothesis testing, science obtains knowledge, and political viewpoints obtain social order generally acceptable to free people. Although western societies generally agree on desirable goals such as greater equality, liberty, freedom, wealth and prosperity, some societies, such as Islamic theocracies believe that furtherance of these qualities leads to decadence and undesirable behavior. Islamic extremists believe that democracy is forbidden because it is rooted literally (and etymologically) in the rule of people, rather than the rule of Allah. The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood of Britain is “The Quran Is Our Constitution; Jihad Is Our Way; Martyrdom Is Our Desire.” The attitude of Islamic extremists is “...The world today suffers from the malignant cancers of freedom and democracy.” Some Islamists believe in a rigid and hierarchical social structure, which is clearly at variance with western mores, and is based on obedience to God and his holy book. It is of considerable interest to note that Islamic extremists demand the “whole universe... and do not hesitate to utilize the means of war to implement its goal.” Shermer asks what do we say to people who do not believe in either liberty or science? Ferris responds by being optimistic about democracy, because the media will eventually allow people to make fact based decisions. Most Muslims are not radical Islamists, and most respond to polls indicating their preference for liberal democracy as a form of government. Shermer cites the book An End To Evil by David Frum and Richard Perle, in which there is a description of the harsh, downtrodden and exploited lives that most Muslims have to endure (and it applies to many others in the non-western world). As these people see what life is like elsewhere because of our immensely increased ability to communicate, they react with rage and are finding ways to change. Shermer thinks that the tried and true scientific solution to political oppression is the dissemination of liberal democracy and market capitalism. It provides the best chance for people to speak and be heard as well as to generate wealth. Shermer adds a final note to this chapter. He refers to many people’s attitude that explaining the origins of belief doesn’t change its internal validity or its external reality- explaining a belief doesn’t explain it away. Shermer’s response is that the formation and reinforcement of political, economic or social beliefs is no different from religious beliefs. Understanding the origins of belief should facilitate less rigidity and more skepticism. The fact that we tend not to do so is a result of powerful cognitive biases to ensure that we are always right. 12. CONFIRMATIONS OF BELIEF Sometimes we witness events that we would ordinarily consider to be a coincidence but mistakenly conclude that their occurrence is causally linked, and not merely by chance. Shermer gives several examples in which the general probability of an event happening is very high although the probability of that event happening in a specific situation is very low. If there is a large pool of potential events the chances that one of those events will actually occur is relatively high. As an example, Shermer borrows from the mathematician Leonard Mlodinow, who computed the odds of a single mutual funds manager beating Standard and Poor’s 500 index, fifteen years in a row as being very slim. The odds would be akin to having a tossed coin land on heads 15 years in a row. However, if all the approximately 6000 mutual fund managers, who in effect have tossed coins once a year for decades, were in the probability pool, the odds that one of them will toss heads fifteen years in a row are much higher than those for a single individual. In fact, Mlodinow demonstrated that over the past forty years of mutual fund trading the odds that at least one mutual fund manager would beat the market for fifteen years in a row turned out to be 75%. Shermer applies this principle of probability thinking to the perception of miracles. He describes the astronomical amount of informational data bits that we perceive, consciously and unconsciously, day in and day out. Even when we discard almost all of them as meaningless, the tiny number that remains may be viewed as miraculous instead of coincidence because we remember selectively, and there is a confirmation bias. Similarly, we can explain death premonition dreams. The average person has about five dreams per night. Multiply and extrapolate to the United States population, and hypothesize that we recall only about one-tenth of what we dream and we produce about 55 billion remembered dreams per year. If each of the 300 million of us knows about 150 people fairly well, there are a total of 45 billion personal connections. Some of those 55 billion remembered dreams will be about the 2.4 million people who die each year in the United States. With all those dreams and all those social connections, Shermer says that it would be a miracle if some death premonition dreams did not come true! Even though most of these premonitions are not associated with death, the few that are, are remembered and emphasized as miracles. The tendency to misperceive probabilities and think anecdotally instead of statistically, and to remember short term trends concerning small numbers is a form of cognitive bias, which Shermer calls folk numeracy. Cognitive biases influence and often distort the way we process information and reinforce our intuitively derived belief systems. How Our Brains Convince Us That We Are Always Right We confirm our beliefs with our cognitive biases. As we solve mental problems through trial and error, we put into place their derivative learned patterns of perception, which we use in interpreting (and sometimes distorting) any new data. Previous beliefs, even if at variance with reality, configure and condition new perceptions in all belief systems. This is what Shermer means by belief-dependent realism, which depends upon the general process of belief confirmation via cognitive bias. The Confirmation Bias: The Mother of All Cognitive Biases This bias gives rise to most of the other biases we incorporate as we interpret data. The confirmation bias is the tendency to find confirmation of already existing beliefs at the expense of evidence to the contrary. “Seek and ye shall find.” Experimentally, Shermer cites a study in which subjects’ attempts at objective personality assessments were distorted by deliberately provided prejudicial information about personality tendencies. Similar results occurred in another study, when subjects’ perception of academic abilities was distorted by deliberately provided data about socioeconomic class. When subjects in another study were presented with evidence that either contradicted or supported a deeply held belief, the subjects were skeptical of the contradicting view and accepted the supportive view. Similar results in multiple studies shows that people tend to condition their perception of new evidence with preconceptions. This confirmation bias operates strongly in political beliefs. Republicans and Democrats who were asked to assess the contradictions in statements by presidential Republican and Democratic candidates, harshly criticized the contradictions of their adversary and down-played those of their ally. Functional MRI studies of these subjects showed that parts of the brain associated with reasoning were quiescent, while parts associated with emotion, patternicity, processing, and reward were active. Instead of rational evaluation, there was emotional reaction to conflicting data. Partisan cognition patterns were reinforced by the brain. This was a clear illustration of confirmation bias. Hindsight Bias There is a tendency to reconstruct the past with present knowledge-ad hoc analysis from a post hoc point of view. Self-Justification Bias The process of cherry-picking the data after the fact. The rationalization of decisions after the fact to convince ourselves that we did the best thing we could have done. It leads to satisfaction about a decision even if objectively, the decision was unwise. This process occurs especially among experts in a particular field, whose opinions and predictions are often no different than non-experts or even chance. Shermer has a saying: “smart people believe weird things because they are better at rationalizing their beliefs that they hold for non-smart reasons.” Politically, different party members examining the same data arrive at radically different conclusions in pursuit of their own ends. In criminal justice, sometimes theories pertaining to a particular crime are developed, producing “tunnel vision” and inflexibility to other possibilities. At times, events change the verdict years later. Attribution Bias We tend to attribute different causes for our own beliefs and actions compared to other people. Situational attribution bias ascribes the beliefs and actions to the environment; dispositional attribution bias ascribes the beliefs and actions to personal traits. Attribution bias is a form of spin-doctoring. Shermer also describes an intellectual and an emotional attribution bias; individuals tend to see their own bias as a result of intellect and that of others as a result of emotion. This self-serving tendency slants their perceptions of the world in their favor. Sunk-Cost Bias The tendency to believe in something because of the cost sunk into that belief. We hang on to lost causes because we pursue the basic fallacy that past investment should influence future decisions. Upton Sinclair said “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” The idea is the tendency to stay the course and not just cut and run, even when the course was seriously erroneous. Status Quo Bias We tend to opt in to whatever we have been doing instead of opting out in search of something new. An example is given where economists studied the response to investment advice. When predicated on the degree of risk, people made a variety of choices according to risk aversion; however, when told that a choice had been made for them, the majority doesn’t change their choice. We tend to think there is less risk in what we have compared to what we might have if we take a chance on change. Endowment Effect We tend to value what we own more than what we don’t own. We hold dear what is ours because of the evolution of territoriality. We are more willing to defend what is ours than to try to take what is someone else’s. This endowment effect is directly connected to loss aversion where we fear the pain of loss twice as much as we anticipate the pleasure of gain. The endowment effect also undergirds the concept of private property. Beliefs are a form of private property, which partly explains why people are loath to give them up. Framing Effects Research shows that how propositions are framed influences how they are perceived. Such effects are found in political and scientific beliefs. The more positively things are framed, the more likely they will be accepted. Anchoring Bias We look for standards for judgment, even when they are not objective or even available. This is the anchoring bias, in which we rely too heavily on past information when making decisions, or try to anchor our decisions in our favor. Availability Heuristic The tendency to assign probability based on examples immediately available. Examples include media events which individuals over-interpret to mean something similar may happen again. Representative Bias Events are judged as probable when they repeat essential features of their generating process. Generally, people tend to simplify their choices when judging probability. We make snap decisions when uncertain, by short-cutting the process, and seizing on representational features in the judgment. Inattentional Blindness Bias “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” This is the tendency to miss the obvious while attending to something else. We have hubris in our powers of perception, exacerbated by our tendency to think that our brains work like video cameras. What really happens is that new data are analyzed by a prejudiced brain which may be focused elsewhere and not perceive the new data. Biases and Beliefs In addition to the belief biases above that Shermer examines in detail and gives experimental evidence for, he lists many other biases including: authority (credentials), bandwagon (social reinforcement), Barnum (vagueness treated as accurate), believability (conclusion is believable), clustering illusion (false patternicity), confabulation( mixed memory and imagination), consistency (past beliefs resemble present ones), expectation (selective attention), false consensus (overestimating agreement), halo effect (extrapolation of the positive), herd (majority rules), control (influentiality), correlation (false connection), in-group bias (identification with members), just-world (deserve what you get), negativity (gets more attention than positivity), normalcy (discount unusual), not invented here (outside information), primacy effect (initial beats subsequent), projection (assuming alliance), recency (recent more valuable), rosy retrospection (positive retro-spin), self-fulfilling prophecy (actions conforming to expectations), generalization (ascribing group identity), trait-ascription (open mindedness). Bias Blind Spot The power to recognize other people’s biases but not recognize their influence on oneself. The Middle Land of Belief When subjects are asked to apply randomness, they in fact tend towards non-random application which in turn influences future applications, an effect called implicit sequence learning. Shermer maintains that the reason for this tendency is our evolution away from extremes of perception and towards the middle. We have a middle land numeracy which leads to attention to short-term trends, meaningful coincidences and personal anecdotes. “Extraordinary events do not always require extraordinary causes...they can happen by chance” We have to be aware of our middle land propensity to find patterns and agents that aren’t there, and we need to embrace the random, find the pattern and know the difference. Science as the Ultimate Bias-Detection Machine No matter what the field of endeavor, we all have the same cognitive temptation to confirm what is already believed. Shermer asks what can we do about it? He indicates that science usually has self-correcting machinery to deal with this tendency. Experimental method, which seeks both confirmatory and contradictory data, is the mechanism to detect bias. 13. GEOGRAPHIES OF BELIEF How can we tell the difference between true and false patterns? The answer is through science, and Shermer describes scientific evolution. Terra Incognita Geographical maps shape cognitive maps and vice versa. Ptolemy’s second century CE world map shaped exploration for more than 1500 years, because it showed that there was still unexplored land, Terra incognita. Negative Beliefs Ptolemy’s map was used by Christopher Columbus. It was an inaccurate guide and although Columbus found land where he expected the Indies to be, as we know, it wasn’t India that he found. Shermer asks why Columbus didn’t realize his mistake, since he knew what to expect from Marco Polo’s land excursions and descriptions of Asian culture. However, those data were sketchy and there was no recorded theory of a new world. Columbus reinforced the inaccurate view that he had reached the Indies by mis-identifying flora as Asian. From San Salvador, he sailed to Cuba where Salvadorans told him there was gold at “Cubanacan-”the middle of Cuba, which Columbus mis-heard as “El Gran Can” or the great Khan (of Asia). Columbus recorded his navigation along the Cuban coast as if he were navigating in southern China, which had been described by Marco Polo. During all four voyages to the new world, Columbus never doubted that he was in the Indies. Such is the power of belief, says Shermer. Subsequent to Columbus’s voyages, the “power of the paradigm” occurred again and again With many explorers, starting with Magellan in 1519. Once it was established that there was a continental land mass between Europe and Asia, the search was on for a passage around the North American continent linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and also the search for the Terra Australis Incognita of Ptolemy’s imagination. The search process produced many negative discoveries, looking for X and finding Y. Thus, New Zealand, Tasmania, Tahiti, Australia, The Great Barrier Reef, Tonga, Easter Island, New Caledonia, New Guinea, the Sandwich Islands and finally the Terra Australis Incognita of Ptolemy, which turned out to be Antarctica, were discovered. Shermer states that “In the end, what was known on the map mattered less than what was unknown, for it is undiscovered country that drives exploration and innovation, placing terra incognita at the very heart of science.” Look Through the Tube Galileo improved the first telescope, manufactured by a Dutch spectacle maker named Hans Lippershey. He made a number of startling observations, including Jupiter’s moons, demonstrating that the earth was not the center of everything, as in Aristotle’s geocentric theory, and giving support to the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. He also noted mountains on the moon, spots on the sun, and the Milky Way, comprised of an uncountable number of stars. Galileo was not greeted with open arms, and his observations were ridiculed and suppressed. He published them anyway, only to be censured and censored by the Catholic Church, and eventually forced to recant his views. Three hundred and fifty years later, in 1992, Galileo was exonerated, revealing how belief systems can and do change once they are decoupled from unchanging dogmas. The Battle of the Books “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.” (Richard Feynman). The dogmas of Aristotelian beliefs were recorded repeatedly by the scholastics until observation and experiment supervened in the 16th century. Andreas Vesalius’s dissections, William Gilbert’s geological observations, and William Harvey’ s vascular physiology continued the revolution started a century before by the explorers of terra incognita, and the telescope. The scientific revolution contradicted Catholic dogma that perpetuated ancient theories with no basis in observation or experimentation. The book of nature went up against The book of authority. This was followed by a religious revolution, the Reformation, which removed the need for clerical intermediaries in relation to God and set the stage for subsequent cultural and political battles between liberals and conservatives. The book of authority was grounded in deduction- the process of making specific statements from generalized conclusions; the book of nature was grounded in induction- drawing general conclusions from specific data. We think in both categories, but sometimes one method is emphasized more than the other. Aristotelian logic was tied to deductive reasoning. It was counteracted by the English philosopher Francis Bacon, who championed observational or empirical science. Shermer describes Aristotelian reasoning as an example of the confirmation bias where we look for and find confirmatory evidence for what we already believe and ignore disconfirming evidence. Empiricism tends to counter this tendency. The Power and Poverty of Pure Empiricism Galileo’s observations sometimes were wrong, as in his description of the planet Saturn as a sphere surrounded by two smaller spheres, instead of a planet with surrounding rings as we see it today. At times, Galileo actually saw the planet without its “spheres” but couldn’t explain that, so he ignored it. Empiricism has its limitations. When nebulous data intersect with an absence of theory, the power of belief fills in the blanks. In this case, the limitations in focusing light and in resolution of his primitive telescope coupled with the absence of a theory of planetary rings, led Galileo to believe what he thought he saw. Galileo said he “observed”, when he should have said “I infer, or I hypothesize or I conjecture or it seems to me.” Modern science recognizes that observations are not sufficient in themselves. Half a century after Galileo’s Saturn observations, the Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens published an understanding of the contradictory observations about Saturn. This was based on a three dimensional instead of a two dimensional depiction of Saturn as well as the concept that the planets revolved around the sun (Copernicus), that orbits were elliptical instead of circular and that inner planets revolved faster than outer ones(Kepler). These effects explained why Saturn appeared different seen from the earth at different times of the year. Shermer points out that the Saturn enigma and its solution reveal the interplay between data, theory and presentation (induction, what we see, deduction, what we think and communication, what we say). We cannot untangle these three because the mind engages them all at the same time. Thus, there is a power and poverty in pure empiricism, as paraphrased from comments by Stephen Jay Gould: Observation is not pure and beyond dispute, and the observer cannot be free of cultural constraints (as well as neurophysiologic constraints) affecting experiment, observation and logical reasoning. Thus empiricism can be turned into a shibboleth adversely harming science. It is ironic that a method devised to undermine proof by authority can become, in turn, a species of dogma in itself. Scientists can only work within their social and psychological (and neurological) contexts. 14. COSMOLOGIES OF BELIEF In the 1920‘s, a new patternicity changed the way we see our cosmos and our place in it. Dr. Edwin Hubble, using the 100“ Hooker telescope, saw that our Milky Way galaxy contained separate galaxies-”island universes” and that there are hundreds of billions of stars within hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. Our universe is much bigger than anyone had imagined. Lookback Time When you look out into space, the distances are so enormous, you are looking back in time as well. Light travels at 186,000 miles/second and the distance to the star nearest the earth, Alpha Centauri, is 4.4 light years. The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. Modern optics have provided the tools to see such enormous distances. Islands in the Sky Immanuel Kant, in1755, formulated a theory that the elliptical shaped “nearby nebulous stars” in our Milky Way were really discs of countless stars very far away. These nebulae became known as Kant’s “island universes.” The great Debate There has been a multicentury debate between those who thought the nebulae were stellar systems within our own galaxy and those who thought they were in separate “island universe” galaxies at great distances. Hubble settled the debate using advanced optics, but before he did there were observations by different astronomers which supported both sides of the issue. Conflicting Patterns of Data With the hindsight bias, we know more now. However, in a sense both theories were correct, since some of the nebulae actually are within our galaxy, although the vast majority are distant island universes outside our galaxy. The distinctions are related to better data and refined theory which all depended on improved observations through better telescopic technology. However, until the more direct observations of Hubble in 1923 there were multiple lines of evidence in favor of either theory. One line of evidence, which went against the “island universe” theory, was the result of the discovery of the spectroscope, a device which gave a wavelength “fingerprint” for individual heated elements and produced the science of astrophysics. This allowed astronomers to analyze the elemental composition of stars and nebulae, from which it was determined that the sun and stars had similar composition, but the nebulae were composed of a luminous gas. The Nebular Hypothesis Made Visible With the spectroscopic data, the pendulum was swinging towards nebulae as internal galactic structures. When astrophotography was introduced, the Andromeda galaxy photograph was thought to be “the nebular hypothesis made visible," a corroboration of the internal galactic theory. The discovery of a nova (a new star formed in a nuclear explosion) in Andromeda, which ought to have been evidence for the “island universe” theory, was regarded as an anomaly. Shermer mentions that this demonstrates the power of concepts to drive percepts. Subsequent spectroscopic analysis of the Andromeda nebula showed that Andromeda’s spectrum more closely resembled a cluster of stars rather than a cloud of gas. “Weighty Evidence in Favor of the Well Known Island Universe Theory” Telescopes were developed which employed a reflecting mirror rather than a refracting lens. The refracting lenses sagged when made too large, producing distortions; the reflecting mirror could be buttressed and therefore made much larger and capable of gathering tiny bits of light from the far reaches of the universe. In addition, spectroscopic analysis via a reflecting mirror was more accurate than through a lens, since a lens absorbed some spectroscopic wavelengths. James Keeler, using the reflecting lens telescope, discovered vastly more nebulae in the Milky Way than had been appreciated. Subsequently, other astronomers found that new novas were present in the nebulae, which supported the island universe theory. Red Shifts and Variable Stars By observing spectrographic analysis of a celestial body over a period of hours, one can determine whether that body is moving towards or away from the viewer. A shift towards the blue end of the spectrum implies movement towards the viewer, and a shift towards the red end, a shift away. This is a result of the Doppler Effect, which describes the squashing of light waves coming towards the observer as being shifted into higher frequencies on the blue end of the spectrum and the stretching of light waves towards the red end of the spectrum as they move away from the observer. Andromeda was very much blue shifted, which put it out of the range of motion of individual stars in our galaxy. Other nebula were similarly measured and found to be moving very much faster than stars in our galaxy, although most of them were red shifted, implying movement away from us. This supported the island hypothesis. What was needed to close the debate was a reliable distance measurement. This was eventually supplied by Henrietta Swan Leavitt, in the form of Cepheid variables. This method, named for a constellation (Cepheus the King), is based on the predictable, but variable brightness within that constellation, which depends on its luminosity, not its distance from us. Cepheid variables became the standard “candle” against which the brightness of other constellations could be compared, and thereby, distance inferred. Once the distance of a nebula is shown to be outside our Milky Way, there is confirmation of the island universe theory. The Big Galaxy Hypothesis and the Mysterious Rotating Nebulae Harlow Shapley, an important astronomer in the early 20th century, increased the estimated size of the Milky Way ten-fold, making our galaxy a “big galaxy,” large enough to accommodate all celestial objects into the known universe. To test this hypothesis, he estimated the rotational speed of nebulae, linking that to distance from our planet. In theory, if a nebula was seen to rotate, it had to be near to us in our galaxy; if it didn’t appear to rotate, it was far from us, otherwise, to be seen, the rotational speed would have to exceed the speed of light (not possible) in order to be seen. Because some astronomers thought they detected rotational movement in Andromeda, Shapley thought it was relatively close to us. A crimp was thus put into the island universe theory by bringing the nebulae in and pushing the galaxy out. However, there was conflict in the data. Estimating the rotation of nebulae was very tedious and erroneous enough that error could exceed measurement. In time, as measuring quality improved, motion of the nebulae seemed to decrease and then disappear. “Var!” Edwin Hubble made the observations that shifted paradigms, because he had access to advanced technology. He used the new standard candle adduced by Leavitt to compute the distance of nebulae and found they were at least 700,000 light years away- far outside even the “big galaxy.” He photographed many nebulae, among which was Andromeda and found new stars (novae) and variable stars. “Var!” was his notation on the photographic plate describing the variable star in Andromeda, which he calculated as being 7000 times brighter than our sun. However, it was dimly noticeable on the photographic plate, which meant that Andromeda was very far away, he calculated at least one million light years away. That meant that Andromeda must be an island universe. Hubble eventually found multiple variable stars as well as “candle” stars in Andromeda which reinforced his initial observations about their distance from our galaxy. The great debate over the celestial nebulae illustrates that in science, resolution of conflicts occurs through higher quality data and more comprehensive theories, which can ultimately produce paradigm shifts in belief. Shermer asks: “What can there be beyond island galaxies populating an expanding universe?” Science and the Greatest Unsolved Mystery The first part of the mystery is how did our universe come to be? What existed before our universe began? Some people even ask the “nonsensical” question why is there something rather than nothing. Shermer says we shouldn’t presume that “nothing” is the natural state of things; maybe “something” is the natural state, and “nothing” has to be explained. One physicist suggests that there is something rather than nothing because something is more stable. We can’t know what exists outside our universe. The theist’s answer to the problem of existence is that God existed before the universe and created it out of nothing. In both the religious and scientific worldviews, time began with the big bang creation of the universe, so God would have to exist outside of space and time. We can’t know anything about such a supernatural entity unless he enters our world as a natural being to perform miracles. We can’t really grasp what infinity, nothing and eternity really mean. “It is tautological to define God as the creator of the universe and (then) to explain the universe as a creation of God.” The second part of the mystery is why is our universe so finely tuned to enable stars, planets, life and intelligence to rise? This is called “the fine-tuning problem” and theists invoke it as argument for the existence of God and non-theist scientists can’t really explain it except by six “cosmic" numbers that describe how life and matter are well tuned: 1. Omega, the amount of matter in the universe. If there were more or less matter than omega what would have happened? If more, the universe would have collapsed and if less no galaxies would have formed. 2. Epsilon, 0.007, which designates how firmly atomic nuclei bind together. If that number were different, matter could not exist as it is. 3. Three dimensions, in which we live. We could not live in two or four. 4. N=10 ^39, the ratio of electromagnetic to gravity’s strength. If the number were smaller, the universe would be too young and small for life to have evolved. 5. Q=1/100,000, the ratio of matter to space, the fabric of the universe. If the ratio was altered, the universe might be featureless or dominated by black holes. 6. Lambda, 0.7, the antigravity force that causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. If lambda were larger, it would have prevented stars and galaxies from forming. Shermer explains that there are more than six numbers describing the fine tuning problem, but these are the big ones. The concept that human beings are adapted to the universe and vice versa is known as the anthropic principle, that a life-giving factor lies at the center of the whole design and machinery of the world. The anthropic principle is the theoretical rational for intelligent design by a deity, the theory of creationism and the basis for theism, an explanation attempting to satisfy the fine tuning problem. The antithesis of the anthropic principle is known as the Copernican principle, which states that we are not special. Shermer suggests that there at least six alternatives to the anthropic theory, which better support the Copernican theory: 1. The universe isn’t well tuned for life support, it’s mostly empty space. 2. The universe isn’t finely tuned for us, although we are finely tuned for the universe. A different physics and chemistry could produce different forms of life, under different sets of natural laws. 3. Certain numbers are considered constants, e.g., the speed of light, Planck’s relationship. However, these constants may actually vary over vast spans of time. Therefore the universe was not always finely tuned as it is now. 4. There may be a unified theory which bypasses the six numbers referred to and connects the subatomic world to the cosmic world of general relativity. 5. There are probably grander vistas yet to be discovered. 6. There may be a multiverse, in which our universe is one among many, all with different laws of nature. Multiverses have been postulated: 1. The eternal return multiverse. This concept postulates cyclical expansion and contraction of the universe. At present its expansion is accelerating and there doesn’t seem to be enough matter in the universe to reverse this process. 2. Multiple creations multiverse. The theory of inflationary cosmology postulates that universes spring from multiple “bubble nucleations of space-time” 3. Many-worlds multiverse. In quantum mechanics, it is supposed that an infinite number of universes may exist in the form of “parallel universes.” 4. Multidimensional string theory multiverse. Our universe may exist on a membrane -like structure which could collide with other such structures producing another universe. A similar event is postulated in string theory. 5. Quantum foam universe. In this model, universes are created out of nothing; however there is quantum foam in space which may create new universes. 6. The natural selection universe. This theory postulates a natural selection of differentially reproducing bubble universes, each with its own laws of nature. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have written on the subject of existence from the point of view of “model dependent realism.” This vantage-point creates models based on observations that explain events whether or not the model may be real. To model the entire universe, they use an extension of different string theories called “M-theory.” It employs multiple dimensions of time and space and postulates a universe which creates itself. How can a universe create itself? Hawking and Mlodinow base their ideas on a constant energy level in the universe which always sums up to zero. To create an entity such as a star or planet, costs energy and has to be balanced by energy loss. They postulate that the positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of gravity. This set of circumstances predisposes to spontaneous creation, since gravity exists and matter has to be created to balance gravity energy. There is no positive evidence for the multiverse hypothesis, but neither is there evidence for God. In either case, there is no answer for what might have preceded the universe, however it was created. For the time being, it comes down to cognitive and emotional preference for God, multiverse or unknown. Shermer says “Which one you choose depends on your own belief journey and how much you want to believe. EPILOGUE THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE “Where philosophy and theology depend on logic, reason, and thought experiments, science employs empiricism, evidence and observational experiments. It is the only hope we have of avoiding belief-dependent realism.” Science and the Null Hypothesis An hypothesis under investigation is not true, i.e., is null, until proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on the assertion which rejects the null hypothesis. The probability level of that assertion has to be high. We need to know how likely the rejection of the null hypothesis is in a given case, and we determine that by establishing statistical confidence levels for its likelihood. Sometimes, we encounter events which we can’t explain; this does not in itself make them real. “The argument...if I can’t explain it, then it must be true- does not hold water in science.” Although certainty is elusive, scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns. We must also remember that rejecting the unproved doesn’t necessarily make it false and accepting an assertion on the basis of statistical evidence doesn’t necessarily make it true. “Provisional truths are the best we can do.” Science and the Burden of Proof The null hypothesis implies that the burden of proof is on those who assert a claim, not on those who doubt it. Lack of evidence does not count towards credulity; inability to explain things scientifically doesn’t make them true. Eventually, as more data are adduced, we may be able to offer better explanations and get closer to the truth. Science and the Convergence Method The convergence method of gathering evidence is often necessary to try to arrive at the truth, since we cannot subject some questions to experimental laboratory science. Convergence of evidence implies a multidisciplinary view of a question with evidence from different points of view coming together and reinforcing an observation or conclusion. Hypotheses can be tested in such a context, especially if cognitive biases are recognized as potentially distorting factors. Science and the Comparative Method There are natural experiments of history in which analogous circumstances among people may be compared, their outcomes noted and causality inferred. We can understand with varying levels of confidence, why things might have happened culturally, technologically, economically and politically, and to some extent, project their probability in the future. Shermer thinks that the comparative method is as rigorous as the methodology of laboratory science. Once an inferential or historical science is well established through accumulated evidence, it becomes testable. Science and the Principle of Positive Evidence Convergence and comparison methods are used routinely by evolution scientists. Creationists would have to unravel their evidence for evolution, and construct a rival theory that could explain things better. Creationists have no positive evidence; instead they proffer supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. The principle of positive evidence means having evidence in favor of your theory, not just negative evidence against rival theories. Most people treat the God question separately from other claims of causality. However, many religious claims are testable. They should be and sometimes are tested experimentally. Science and Belief Shermer states that “Homo rationalis, the species that weighs all decisions through cold hard logic and rational analysis of the data, is not only extinct but probably never existed.” We have the most complex and sophisticated brains in the universe, capable of remarkable understanding, as well as deception and illusion. We all want to believe, but we need to know, and science is the only tool we have to get near the truth. |
| HOME |